There is no question that Obama’s proposed executive order, in effect granting amnesty to about five million illegal and undocumented immigrants, is a grave and serious attack on the American Constitution and upon the founding principles of the United States.
The challenge for the Republicans is to properly and practically respond to this threat to the very essence of the American system of governance.
Some of the most persuasive arguments against Obama’s unilateral action were made previously by Obama himself.
In the last few years,
Obama has argued that he could not as President prevent the deportation of illegal immigrants because the nation’s laws were clear enough, and “that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.”
In addition, Obama has publicly stated “ the problem is, that I am the President of the United States. I am not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.”
Precisely. Recall that, in Obama’s previous life, he was a Harvard Law grad, and supposedly a respected constitutional scholar and lecturer. So in Obama’s case, pleading ignorance of the law is certainly no excuse.
Obama’s apologists are now suggesting that Obama’s previous comments were based upon other people’s faulty legal opinions. That explanation is also invalid. Obama has always prided himself as “the smartest man in the room”, if not the country. In constitutional matters, he is his own best counsel.
So what has changed in the last year? The immigration laws have not changed. The Constitution has not changed.
The fundamental principles of separation of powers and checks and balances are still embedded in the Constitution.
At least for now.
In Obama’s recent speech to the nation, the only fact on the ground that has changed is Congress’ failure to act on immigration reform, that is, Congress has failed to fix a broken system.
For Obama and his Democratic acolytes, lackeys and cult-like followers, the ends of granting amnesty to five million illegal immigrants, justify the means of trampling on America’s hallowed Constitution.
Recall the very founding of America was based on the rejection of the superior power of the monarchy or executive over the people, the governed. America was founded and was to be governed on the basis of the separation of the powers of three co-equal main branches of government. And that the power of each branch would be constrained by checks and balances.
It is not acceptable legally or constitutionally for Obama to justify his unilateral executive actions on the basis that since Congress has not exercised its constitutional power to enact laws reforming immigration, that reluctance gives Obama carte blanche to extend his executive powers into Congress’ exclusive legislative jurisdiction.
This is a dangerous extension and abuse of presidential power.
Note that Obama and his apologists have defended this unlawful executive action on the basis that former Republican Presidents Reagan and Bush 1, also issued similar type executive orders to prevent illegal immigrants from being deported.
You have to hand it to Obama and his Ivy League elitist henchmen. They are evil and devious geniuses. For six years, Obama and his people have tried to baffle the American people with their convoluted, complex and deceptive legal hocus pocus and BS.
Thanks to Jonathan Gruber, ObamaCare’s architect, we now know that Obama and his people have been playing us for fools, for being stupid. Clearly not up to their lofty Ivy League elitist intellectual standards.
According to Gruber, in order to pass ObamaCare, the people were misled into thinking: (1) ObamaCare was not a tax; (2) it would lower, not increase health and medical costs; and (3) the biggest whopper, if you liked your doctor and insurance plan, you could keep them both.
Similarly, according to Obama, his ImmigrationCare, has legal precedent.
Lies, lies and more lies.
Unlike what Obama is about to do, Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 issued immigration regulations that were expressly authorized by a law passed by Congress. (
PowerLineBlog, Nov. 20, 2014)
In 1986, Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act. The Act required him to adjust the status of certain illegal immigrants to the category of “alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence.”The Act also authorized the Attorney General to allow other illegal immigrants who did not qualify for the amnesty to remain in the U.S. if needed “to assure family unity.”
Based on this Congressional act, Reagan’s Justice Department issued regulations that permitted some illegal immigrant spouses and children to stay in the country for the sake of family unity.
It is critical to note that this regulation was not an exercise of prosecutorial discretion or the assertion of a generalized right to suspend “oppressive” immigration laws. Rather, the Reagan administration made it clear that it was carrying out the direction of Congress.
In 1990 President George H.W. Bush ( Bush 1), through regulation, expanded the Reagan Department of Justice’s interpretation of “family unity” to encompass all spouses and children. Like Reagan, Bush merely interpreted the 1986 Act, as Congress had called on the executive to do.
In both instances, Reagan and Bush 1 attempted to effect and enforce Congressional intent. In neither case, did they try to usurp Congress’ constitutional power to enact legislation.
Obama, by contrast, will not be fulfilling a congressional mandate to interpret a new statute. He will be overriding the immigration law in the name of “prosecutorial discretion” on the ground that Congress has not enacted a new statute.
As above noted, this is a dangerous and arrogant attempt by Obama to usurp the powers of Congress and in the process, undermine the American Constitution.
The Republicans have a moral and legal obligation to resist Obama and to vigorously defend the Constitution against this dangerous and out of control president.
Impeachment is neither achievable or practical. In my next article, I will try to suggest what the Republicans can and should do to properly defend the Constitution, defend the United States against this “home-grown usurper” and demonstrate to the American people that they are capable of governing this country responsibly for the people and by the people.
